Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » City of Chicago: “Christianity is a Cancer on the Soul of the City and We Will Have it Out!”

City of Chicago: “Christianity is a Cancer on the Soul of the City and We Will Have it Out!”

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Associated Press is reporting that the City of Chicago has threatened the organizers of an annual German festival, Christkindlmarket, over one of their sponsors. This sponsor, according to the City of Chicago, would be “insensitive to the many people of different faiths… [and] contrary to acceptable advertising standards…”

Was this sponsor the KKK? The World Church of the Creator? No. The sponsor was a movie studio, New Line Cinema. New Line Cinema sponsored the event (until their money was turned down because of the threats of the City of Chicago) with advertisements of the movie, The Nativity Story.

Predictably, the City tried to hide behind the “separation of church and state” doctrine. Skipping past the fact that the First Amendment requires institutional separation, not the purging of all things religious, the characterization of New Line Cinema as a religious institution is somewhat contrived.

Some of the movies New Line has put out include such religious classics as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Snakes on a Plane, the Austin Powers series, and Blow. New Line is a thoroughly secular company that produces movies that range from the pornographic, to flippant gore, to children’s movies. They’ve decided to make a movie about the Nativity, an event that is indisputably consequential in the history of mankind no matter what you believe.

The City of Chicago could have had a problem sponsoring a festival called “Christkindlmarket” (Christ Child Market) but they don’t. They could have a problem with the nativity scenes that take place in this festival, but they don’t because they include celebrations of other faiths. They had a problem that the brochureincluded a small ad from New Line, who paid for it to advertiese the movie The Nativity Story.

There is no outright religious imagery at all in that ad. No crosses, no mention of religion, only the name of a film the references the same event celebrated by Christkindlmarket.

There is no War on Christmas, the War is on Christians. Organizations such as the ACLU and the City of Chicago hold that they do not have the right to exist, to live their lives as they see fit, nor speak their mind in anyway where someone might overhear them. As was put on Captain’s Quarters blog, “they reject on culture in order to keep from offending others.” Diversity and multiculturalism means a certain culture needs to be purged from public view in the City of Chicago.

Even when Christians choose to create their own cities and live by their own rules, the ACLU brings out the big guns to stop it. If one in a hundred thousand pharmacists want to live by their conscience and not dispense pills to murder babies, Illinois issues “emergency laws” to stop them. It isn’t enough that 99,999 of 100,000 pharmacists would fill the script, it’s that there is one pharmacist out there who has values that need to be excised from society as if it were a cancer.

The City of Chicago’s decision has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with separation of Church and State or multiculturalism. It is censorship, pure and simple. It’s yet another declaration of war on Christianity’s right to exist.

Powered by

About John Bambenek

John Bambenek is a political activist and computer security expert. He has his own company Bambenek Consulting in Champaign, IL that specializes in digital forensics and computer security investigations.
  • Nancy

    If Chicago wants to eradicate one religion, it should eradicate all religion(s); however the business with the pharmacists is another matter entirely, in that there the situation is one of an individual imposing their personal religious beliefs on others in violation of medical licensing & medical practices. Total disconnect.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    There is no imposition. There is a pharmacist practicing his profession, like any other nurse, doctor, or for that matter businessmen, as he sees fit.

    If Walmart doesn’t stock Plan B, you can go to Walgreen’s, CVS, or hell, get Plan B online from most Planned Parenthoods.

    Imposing would be taking the script and tearing it up (which is what the pharmacists did that spawned the case) which is undeniably wrong.

    Our free market is designed so buyers AND sellers can decide how the choose to operate. If one seller doesn’t work for you, go to another.

    There is absolutely nothing imposed by a pharmacists saying “I don’t dispense this” because they remain free to go somewhere else. They remain free to live their lives as they see fit.

    As far as “eradicating all religions” goes…. the separation clause is very closely followed by the exercise clause… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    It’s not either or, it’s not no religion. It’s viewpoint neutrality, which is exactly what the Supreme Court has said is required. If the city offers ad space, it has to do so on a viewpoint neutral basis. Saying anything BUT [Christian] religion, is hardly viewpoint neutral, is unconstitutional, and is censorship.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    A great deal of hyperbole in this article, but its essential point is mostly correct. The city of Chicago’s actions and statments are ludicrous and unwarranted.

  • Clavos

    What I don’t get about the ACLU’s Jihad against Christianity (and it IS against Christianity, not all religions), is why the courts seem to support the ACLU.

    Their suits are directed against prayer in schools, and display of the Ten Commandments and Nativities on public property (among others), and yet the Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

    In none of the situations I’ve cited, has Congress even been involved, much less “mak(ing) laws respecting the establishment of religion…”

    It seems to me that the courts are definitely “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and are overstepping their bounds.

    For the record, I am not a believer in any religion.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Clavos, the reason the ACLU goes after Christianity, which I agree it does, is that Christianity is the big target and the one which is easiest to find and most available to fight. The courts go along because by banning Chritianity they effectively ban all other religions as well.

    I don’t have a problem with this at all. Having had a kid in a government school where she was constantly bombarded by covert attempts from Christian groups to sneak their proselytizing into the school I wish the ACLU would do MORE to fight the insidious bastards.

    Dave

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    I disagree… a key component of regressive (or so-called progressive) politics is the underdog syndrome.

    There is such a focus on the right of minorities, that they go after a majority as ipso facto the problem. In this country, Christians are “a majority” so they are the enemy. Muslims, Jews (well kinda but that’s a special case), and alternative religions are minorities and deserving of protection. Majorities, white males, Christians, etc, are deserving of attack.

  • Nancy

    Maybe as a member of multiple ‘majorities’, John (white male, christian) you don’t realize or feel the pressure of the incessant covert or even overt proselytizing & bullying that the christian majorities subject non-members to. Most of us shrug it off, but it is annoying & if we don’t draw a line – and enforce it – it becomes more than annoying. Christians wouldn’t get kicked in the chops if they’d leave off hustling everyone else & mind their own business for a change – but they don’t & won’t, hence the “targeting”. Would YOU, as a christian, appreciate being constantly bombarded & targeted for conversion or otherwise by, say, Muslims or Jews? Would you appreciate a Jewish majority outlawing bacon, ham, & pork because THEY regard it as polluting, therefore it “should” be polluting for everyone – including YOU, even if you’re not Jewish? I doubt it. But christians behave with an arrogant presumption that they have not only the right but the mandate to do so. Well, until they learn to stop trying to foist their beliefs on non-christians, they’re going to continue to get “targeted” (more accurately, issued restraining orders) regarding any sort of public action.

    Regarding the Christkindlmarket, however, that would seem to be overstepping, since it could conceivably fall into the realm of “traditional” area festivals, just as Swedes celebrate St. Lucia’s Day…but perhaps in the long run it would be best to relegate such quasi-religious celebrations to be run under private auspices instead of governments of any level. That wasn’t made clear in the article: is this a government-sponsored festival, or is it privately run? If private, then I agree, I don’t see that the government at any level has a right to suppress it, if tax funds are not being used or public property taken over. As for any sponsors being suppressed, I don’t see how the city could legally bar anyone from being a sponsor, be they individuals or organizations, as long as they aren’t illegal ipso facto.

  • Baronius

    Why do the courts tend to agree with the ACLU? Because the judges and activist lawyers are educated in the same law schools. Judges often make decisions on their own that go further than the ACLU would’ve hoped for.

    Something happened in the law schools in the mid-1960’s that I don’t really understand. The emphasis shifted, from consistent rules and tests, to doing what’s right. The result is a society forced to do what the judge thinks is right.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I think Chicago made a mistake, although if you read the actual AP story John links to you will see the extent to which he exaggerated and distorted what actually happened. There was no need….the simple facts would have sufficed.

    The ACLU has nothing to do with this specific event. Many commenters seem to believe otherwise. The continuing caricatures of the ACLU as ‘anti-Christian’ are false and serve no purpose, except to mislead others and start arguments.

    The ACLU spends a lot of time and money on other things, and is not nearly as obsessed with Nativity scenes as certain posters on this site. Of course, I doubt John B or those who loudly second his non-fact-based opinions would ever lower themselves to actually look at it, but in case anyone is interested, here is the ACLU’s Freedom of Religion and Belief page , which is most certainly not anti-Christian.

  • Clavos

    Baronius writes:

    Something happened in the law schools in the mid-1960’s that I don’t really understand. The emphasis shifted, from consistent rules and tests, to doing what’s right. The result is a society forced to do what the judge thinks is right.

    The problem, of course, is defining “right.”

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Nancy-

    Strictly speaking, these groups you are talking about that go off and engage in “overt proselytizing & bullying” have a bigger problem with me than you. See, yeah, they think you need to accept Christ in their particular formula to be saved. They regard you as lost. Me, being Catholic, I’m considered in league with the anti-Christ. We’re on the same level as gays in their minds. Mind you the KKK not only targeting blacks, but Catholics as well.

    That said, there are lots of aggressive tactics that try to shove ideas down my throat on a daily basis. Why is religion any different? People are harassed by all sorts of things, at what point did it become ok to outlaw free speech because something bothers you?

    Free speech helps identify the idiots… they’re usually the ones with the megaphones.

    Ignore them and move on. I do… so can you.

  • Clavos

    Thanks for the replies to my #4. And Dave, I understand your point about Christianity being the most ubiquitous and visible religious target.

    What no one has addressed, however, is my point that the ACLU has gone far beyond the letter of the First Amendment, which merely prohibits the government from passing laws that respect the establishment of a religion.

    Allowing Creches or Menorahs or Star and Crescent displays on public land falls far short of that standard, particularly when multiple symbols are displayed.

  • zingzing

    from reading your article, i am left with some questions. like, what is going on? did the city stop the festival? did they remove the brochure? how does attacking a movie studio equate to attacking christianity? where is the church and state issue? does the city have something to do with the festival? does new line have something to do with the christian church?

    if this is really over the brochure ad placed by new line, then why did the city get so offended? i really don’t see what’s really going on.

    mostly, i don’t understand the city’s reasoning. and i don’t really understand yours. but somehow, i’d bet you’ve missed something huge. like the big gap in your story.

    one point: the nativity is important as a scene in a book, not as a historical event.

    also, stop frothing at the mouth for a minute, slow down and reread what you wrote. it’s riddled with typos.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    What no one has addressed, however, is my point that the ACLU has gone far beyond the letter of the First Amendment, which merely prohibits the government from passing laws that respect the establishment of a religion.

    Not too damned far beyond the letter, and clearly within the intent. Would you agree that the government shouldn’t subsidize a particular church – which is what had been going on in some New England states and which the framers were reacting against?

    When you put an advertisement for a religion on public property you are to however small a degree, spending public funds – MY tax dollars – to promote that religion. Even if you include all religions, you’re still promoting them with my money and I don’t want you to.

    I don’t want ANY kind of advertising done at my expense with tax dollars, be it religious in nature or for businesses. It’s an inappropriate use of money which the government has other legitimate uses for.

    Dave

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    No advertisements is one thing… allowing any advertisement but [Christian] religious ones is another.

    And even in this case, it wasn’t a religious institution, it was New Line Cinema. And the ad was far from evangelical… heck, it just had the name of the film and release date on it.

  • Clavos

    Dave asks:

    Would you agree that the government shouldn’t subsidize a particular church – which is what had been going on in some New England states and which the framers were reacting against?

    Absolutely. And I agree with your point that the government has no business advertising any religion with our tax dollars.

    I don’t agree, however with this:

    Not too damned far beyond the letter, and clearly within the intent.

    Which is my original point; that such displays are not prohibited within the language of the First Amendment.

    I do think they should be prohibited, and that laws should be enacted to do so, but in accordance (like porn) with the community standards of each community which wants to enact them.

    To comply with your point about our tax dollars, such displays should never be on federal property, but if the town government of Podunk, Florida wants to display Christmas scenes on the Town Hall front lawn, and the taxpayers of that town are in agreement with that idea, they should be able to do so.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    Interesting use of quotation in your headline. Did anyone actually say that? I think this kind of thing is stupid, but it’s hardly a war on Christianity’s “right to exist”.

    “Put down the megaphone and step away from the hyperbole.”

    Hey, fake quotes are fun!

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    If you can explain to me who an inanimate and abstract construct can speak, then we can talk about fake quotes.

  • Bliffle

    Did somebody actually say “Christianity is a Cancer on the Soul of the City and We Will Have it Out!”? If so, who? Or did you just make that quote up?

  • SHARK

    Dear Bambineck,

    Thanks for speaking out for those poor persecuted Christians.

    I know there’s a “War on Christmas” going on because I can spit out my window and hit one of their fucking self-righteous Soldiers.

    And while under attack from that dreaded ACLU — so many of those cheesy nativity scenes have made a military retreat from IN FRONT OF CITY HALL and relocated to my neighborhood demilitarized zone. (Live goats and camels are such a nuisance!)

    But, jeesuz h. christ, Major Bambi — during a war, there’s usually a mandatory “black-out” to avoid incoming bombardment. So why do the Christoids celebrate by lighting up their houses like a pinball machine in a prositute pad? Do they enjoy being targets? They got some obsession with persecution?

    And wouldn’t a nice camo outfit be preferable to those high-visibility Red & Green uniforms?

    Seems they need a new “war strategy”.

    PS: In lieu of hand-grenades, the hyperbolic fake headlines are working swell! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

  • SHARK

    excerpt from the film

    “Dr. Strangeboy: or — How I Learned to Start Worrying and Love the Attention”

    General John D. Bambi-ripper: Do you realize that in addition to banning Christmas, why, there are studies underway to teach evolution, make atheism mandatory in elementary schools, require pregnant Republican women to have forced abortions, and consider homosexuals as human beings with the full benefits of law!? And worse yet, They want to shove Kwanzaa down our fucking throats!

    Group Capt. Clavos: Lord, John!

    General John D. Bambi-ripper: Do you know when Kwanzaa first began?

    Group Capt. Baronius: I… no, no. I don’t, John.

    General John D. Bambi-ripper: Nineteen hundred and sixty-six. 1966, Clavos! Hippies, freaks, summer of love, atheists, pagans, sex, drugs, rock and roll?! How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign idea is introduced into our precious belief systems without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.

  • http://trueblueblog.wordpress.com TrueBlueBlog

    I think you’re a little off-base, Clavos. The ACLU isn’t engaged in “Jihad” against Christianity; if American Muslims or Hindus or Jews were as intent on using public funds and facilities to promote their faiths as so many Christian sects appear to be these days, they’d rightfully challenge them in court as well.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    To comply with your point about our tax dollars, such displays should never be on federal property, but if the town government of Podunk, Florida wants to display Christmas scenes on the Town Hall front lawn, and the taxpayers of that town are in agreement with that idea, they should be able to do so.

    Glad to see you agree about placement on federal property. Now what about property of organizations receiving federal funding like schools?

    As for the town, that’s up to them. IMO since they take taxes they should follow common sense and do the same as the federal government, but I think you’re right that it’s an administrative decision up to the town government or local laws.

    Now, of course, almost all the states and many local jurisdictions have their own separation of church and state provisions in constitutions or other documents, many of them much more specific and clear than the federal equivalent.

    Dave

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    Bambenek–

    As usual you have overreacted to an insignificant and harmless non-event complete with your standard invocation of an ACLU boogeyman. This “war on Christmas” is Fox News bullshit of the foulest magnitude.

    And you wonder why it is that First Amendment establishment issues always involve Christianity? You seem to think it’s because Christians are the victims of discrimination by activist judges. Rather it’s that Christians, as the majority, are the only ones with the ability or inclination to make their faith the official state religion. If your religion were in the minority, you might feel differently about the value of the First Amendment and judicial branch.

    And by the way, it makes perfect sense to excise Jesus from Christmas celebrations. “Christmas” as it is currently known has been around for at least 4000 years and was invented by the Mesopotamians. (The early Christians tried to illegalize the holiday.) Over the years, scores of fad religions (Romans, Persians, Christians) have co-opted the holiday and glommed their made-up god onto it (Saturn, Oden, Jesus).

    As for your personal understanding of the First Amendment, once again I advise to actually read some caselaw rather than ignorantly spouting off about it.

  • Nancy

    5th D has a good point: christmas as such hasn’t been a ‘christian’ holiday for some decades now, if not longer. Nowadays it’s mainly a secular holiday used as an excuse by advertisers to urge consumers to exceed their previous years’ glut of buying. It’s an exercize in greed, not an exercise in religion. Even some Jews maintain christmas trees as “Hannukah bushes”. I am reminded of my grandmother’s little old home town in New England, in which the Town Christmas Tree was housed each year at a different place of worship – including the local synagogue, which took their turn with everybody else. I will admit there were no angels or nativity scenes admixed with it; just lots of lights, candy canes, and strings of glittery tinsel decorations. It was regarded as a sort of nonsectarian gesture to the generic holiday season, not a symbol of a specific religious celebration.

  • Clavos

    Dave, #23:

    OK, you’ve convinced me of the illegality of religious symbology on public property; that it’s proscribed by the First Amendment; I concede the point.

    So the question then becomes why are we so inconsistent? Why are we not purging ALL religious references and symbology from the government?

    Swearing officials in on a Bible? Prayers before Congressional sessions? God on the money? Masonic symbology on the money? References to God in the Preamble? And so forth?

    It seems to me to be a logical progression, once you accept the basic premise.

  • http://kanrei.blogspot.com Brad Schader

    Allowing a Christ CHild festival in the city with nativity scenes and Christmas trees but stopping one movie ad is attacking Christianity? When did Christians become such babys? You get your way 99% of the time and cannot help but bitch about the 1% you don’t.

    Make up your minds- do you want Christmas commercialized or not? I seem to recall everyone complaining a few years ago that Santa was bigger than Jesus on CHristmas.

  • http://kanrei.blogspot.com Brad Schader

    For the record, the 1st amendment says that “no law shall be passed.” That means no laws for and no laws against may be passed. Congress may not rule on the issue at all.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Re Clavos, #26: I’ve always thought that officials should take the oath on the Constitution instead of the Bible. Doesn’t that seem more appropriate, anyway?

    As for prayers in Congress, it’s not like that’s a new controversy. James Madison was a FIERCE opponent of it, writing pamphlet after angry pamphlet against the practice. Why? Because he felt it violated the intent of the First Amendment.

    Where is there a reference to God in the preamble? Nowhere. In fact many people have tried to amend the preamble to put God in it. Never happened.

  • Clavos

    MJW:

    You’re right: I meant to say the declaration.

  • Franco

    A Christian perspective on this topic that sums up quite well many of the comments on this blog.

    Jesus said “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you of the world, therefore the world hates you.” –John 15:18-19

  • Clavos

    MJW #29:

    I’ve always thought that officials should take the oath on the Constitution instead of the Bible. Doesn’t that seem more appropriate, anyway?

    Why should they take an oath at all? What is there about an oath that ensures they’ll do what the oath describes? It’s a pointless gesture, IMO.

    As for prayers in Congress, it’s not like that’s a new controversy. James Madison was a FIERCE opponent of it, writing pamphlet after angry pamphlet against the practice. Why? Because he felt it violated the intent of the First Amendment.

    I didn’t say (or imply) that it was a new controversy; I asked why they haven’t been stopped if they’re illegal?

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    References to God in the Preamble?

    There is no reference to god in the preamble to the constitution. As a matter of fact, god isn’t mentioned anywhere in the constitution. You’re probably confusing it with the declaration of independence which mentions “god” once and “Creator” once.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    You’re right: I meant to say the declaration.

    Fair enough. But the Declaration is not an official or legal government document. I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to call it “revolutionary propaganda,” but on the continuum with “government document” at one end and “revolutionary propaganda” at the other, it’s MUCH closer to revolutionary propaganda. So the reason it’s never been removed is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the laws or policies of America. It’s there for the sole purpose of saying, “God’s on our side, King George III, so screw you!”

    Why should they take an oath at all? What is there about an oath that ensures they’ll do what the oath describes? It’s a pointless gesture, IMO.

    Maybe you’re right. But the purpose of a legal oath is to reinforce the obligations of government officials. If they don’t make promises to do X, Y, and Z, then they’re not technically under any obligation to do those things. So we must therefore throw out the concepts of impeachment, censure, and even perjury. (After all, if an oath of office is a pointless gesture, than an oath to tell the truth in a court of law is equally pointless, isn’t it?)

    I didn’t say (or imply) that it was a new controversy; I asked why they haven’t been stopped if they’re illegal?

    I don’t know. I wish they had been stopped, and I think it’s unconstitutional to have a chaplain on the Congressional payroll. My only point in talking about Madison, etc. was that if they haven’t been stopped, it’s not because nobody’s tried.

  • Clavos

    (After all, if an oath of office is a pointless gesture, than an oath to tell the truth in a court of law is equally pointless, isn’t it?)

    Yup. And it seems to have little or no effect on people bent on perjury.

  • SHARK

    ~Jeezus.

    ~Fuck.

    Your Cosmic Boy died on a fucking cross, was tortured, had holes poked in his hands and side — and from what I’ve read (and seen – thanks to Mel Gibson), EVEN THEN Jesus didn’t whine, whine whine as much as you do, General Bambi!

    Two years now of this “War on Christmas” crap…

    …from what some might call THE most powerful group of people on the planet.

    They own the White House and at least a few major TV networks.

    They aren’t satisfied that — nor with being THE major religion in Amerika.

    They aren’t satisfied with their own fucking day TWICE a year (Easter/Miracle Birth — Xmas/Miracle death).

    They aren’t satisfied with endless-loops of The Carpenters whining in the background as far as the ear can hear in every major city in Amerika.

    War on Christmas. FEH.

    Can we be done with this?

    PS: I suggest that this “article” — LIKE all past entries by General Bambi-ripper — doesn’t even deserve a thread. Let this piece of shit “essay” die an obscure death like the rest.

    We’ll come back in three days and see if it’s still alive.

    Thanks in advance,
    The Management

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    So the question then becomes why are we so inconsistent? Why are we not purging ALL religious references and symbology from the government?

    Swearing officials in on a Bible? Prayers before Congressional sessions? God on the money? Masonic symbology on the money? References to God in the Preamble? And so forth?

    It seems to me to be a logical progression, once you accept the basic premise.

    I agree. Should we blame the freemasons? That’s always a good option.

    As someone pointed out there’s no reference to god anywhere in the Constitution, but the rest of the traditions you mention ought to be scrapped or made entirely non-sectarian, including taking away the freemasons free advertising space on the dollar.

    And there are people who have campaigned for these changes. But the fact is that most of them are less public or else not mandatory. You don’t HAVE to swear on the bible, for example.

    Christmas, on the other hand, is big and right there in your face.

    But just to provide some perspective, anyone who actually feels threatened by an angel on the courthouse lawn and tries to do something about it is a ridiculous pansy or an ideological fascist with way too much time on their hands – even if they’re technically correct.

    Dave

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    Re #18: Such a surreal question. We need to exhume Ted Giesel to answer “who an inanimate and abstract construct can speak.”

    In seriousness, your headline implies that an official speaking for the city of Chicago—say, Mayor Daley or some fiery alderman—said that.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    FWIW, the good parts of the Declaration did make it in the Constitution in the form of the 13th and 14th Amendments. That one shite part stayed where it belongs, in the preamble.

    “Lincoln at Gettysburg” by Gary Wills, a fascinating read, is about how the Gettysburg Address was Lincoln’s way of combining the DofI and the Const. into one idea of America. After the war, they made it official by ratifying 13 & 14.

  • Mohjho

    This war on Christmas and now war on Christians is total bullshit. You and yours are trying to use the ‘war on..’ mentality to take advantage of peoples insipid and misplaced paranoia.

    If you were serious, you would spend your time refuting the actual events instead of crying persecution against us poor poor Christians. Pretty pathetic really.

    Sounds like the City of Chicago screwed up. Its not the end of the wold as we know it and does not need a call to arms. Just counter the legal arguments.
    Stop whining, it embarrassing.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Man, you guys really have to learn how to do your holidays right. For Hanukkah, we eat sufganiyot and potato pancakes, have some fun parties and light little candles. Oh, the merchants try hard to commercialize the holiday, but there is nothing to get a handle on.

    And when you see the big hanukkiot (what American Jews call menorahs because they do not know enough Hebrew to realize that a menorah is a lamp – any lamp, even one that drunks lean on…) all over the country with the lights, it’s because we’re proud of having kicked the shit out of somebody – once…

    And there are no stupid wars on Hanukkah, no court cases, and no Israeli versions of John Bambenek whining about wars on Hanukkah. We have real wars and real traitors to worry about.

    And we have secular Jews telling us that we religious Jews are a cancer that need to be rooted out. And they never take a holiday off to shut up…